Opinion by Richard Galant
Updated 0419 GMT (1219 HKT) April 4, 2022
Last week, missile attacks continued to pound Ukraine’s cities, despite a claim by the Russians that they were refocusing their strategy on warfare in the eastern part of the country. No one knows how the war will unfold and either side could win, but the chances may be good that it too will eventually become a frozen conflict.
Ukraine’s military intelligence chief last week suggested that Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to cleave western Ukraine from the Russian-separatist portions of the east and create a divide much like the one between North and South Korea.
That’s another frozen conflict, even though hostilities in the Korean War ended on July 27, 1953.
“For a brief moment this week, it seemed vaguely possible that Russia might ease its brutal onslaught in parts of Ukraine,” wrote Frida Ghitis. “After Russian envoys spoke to a Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul, Turkey, on Tuesday, the Russian deputy defense minister announced that Moscow would draw back its forces and ‘drastically reduce military activity’ around the cities of Kyiv and Chernihiv to boost ‘mutual trust.'”
“But those who have been paying close attention to Russia under its leader Vladimir Putin knew better than to take their word for it.” Can Putin’s word be trusted, Ghitis asked. “How do you negotiate with an interlocutor who lies routinely, repeatedly and without compunction? How do you negotiate with a regime that has a decades-long track record of breaking its international commitments?”
In the Financial Times, Edward Luce argued, “At some point, the west will have to talk to the enemy it has rather than the one it would like. That will mean doing some kind of a deal with Putin. The alternative — aiming for Russia’s unconditional surrender and the ejection of Putin — is a bet western leaders cannot afford to indulge.”
Luce noted that “Few believe Putin is ever likely to drop his ultimate ambition of swallowing Ukraine. Any deal, let alone a ceasefire, should thus be treated as a tactical pause.” His bleak outlook: “Ukraine could be forced to suffer months or even years of bloody stalemate.”
Lawrence Freedman, also writing in the FT, argued that “for now neither side has an incentive to commit to a long-term settlement. They are waiting for military breakthroughs and a clearer view on the likely course of the war. Should the prospect be one of a long stalemate, then both might feel obliged to compromise.”
In a conversation with Peter Bergen, retired US Major General Mike Repass said the Russian invasion “culminated” nearly a week ago, meaning that Putin’s forces “no longer have sufficient combat power to continue to advance in the offense.” But he added that the extent of losses on the Ukrainian side is not clear, which makes predicting the future course of the war extremely difficult.
Biden goes off script
President Joe Biden’s pronouncement on Putin could not have been clearer: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.” Yet as soon as he said it, the cleanup by US officials began — and the President later clarified that he was talking only about his moral outrage over the invasion, not about seeking regime change in the Kremlin.
Dean Obeidallah wrote that Biden had nothing to apologize for. “The world has seen the horrors Putin has rained down upon the people of Ukraine simply because they won’t bend a knee to this brutal dictator and agree to give up their democracy and self-determination,” Obeidallah observed.
But if Americans think that appeals to morality would prompt the strongmen (siloviki) around Putin to oust him or force a change in policy, they’re mistaken, wrote former CIA clandestine service official Douglas London.
“In the multi-level chess game of internal Russian power dynamics,” London wrote, “the last thing those within the Kremlin who might consider moving against Putin need — whether to alter his direction on the war or remove him outright — is public encouragement from an American president … Russians in positions of power today do not necessarily subscribe to Jeffersonian democratic ideals or see America as the world’s shining beacon of light. They are focused on the attainment and preservation of power and privilege.”